[Note: in honor of the anniversary, I've moved this post to the top, all day]

Lileks, on today's date:

It seemed right away like it would be a big war, three to four years – Afghanistan first, of course, then Iraq, then Iran. The idea that it would have stalled and ended up in diffuse oblique arguments about political timetables would have been immensely depressing. There was a model for this sort of thing, a template. Advance. But that requires cultural confidence, a loose agreement on the goals, the rationale, the nature of the enemy and the endgame. We don’t have those things. Imagine telling someone six years ago Iran would be allowed, by default, to make nuclear weapons. They would wonder what the hell we’d done with half a decade, plus change. What part of 25 years of Death to America didn’t we get, exactly?

Apropos of nothing in particular, this is the first anniversary that was the same day as the day it happened--on a Tuesday. One still wonders how they picked that date and day. But that's the only similarity, apparently. The current weather for Manhattan is cloudy and rainy--nothing at all like that Tuesday six years ago, when death and destruction suddenly appeared from a cloudless blue sky.

[Update a few minutes later]

The fog shrouds the hole in the skyline.

[Mid-morning update]

It's a propitious day to come out with Norman Podhoretz' new book on the war. He also has a piece at the Journal today.

[Late morning update]

Jonah Goldberg writes about the emotional half life of 911. Pretty much everyone comes in for criticism, including the president. But this is an important point, I think:

...it’s important to remember that from the outset, the media took it as their sworn duty to keep Americans from getting too riled up about 9/11. I wrote a column about it back in March of 2002. Back then the news networks especially saw it as imperative that we not let our outrage get out of hand. I can understand the sentiment, but it’s worth noting that such sentiments vanished entirely during hurricane Katrina. After 9/11, the press withheld objectively accurate and factual images from the public, lest the rubes get too riled up. After Katrina, the press endlessly recycled inaccurate and exaggerated information in order to keep everyone upset. The difference speaks volumes.

Indeed. Of course, in the first case, we would have gotten riled up against the Religion of Peace™. Couldn't have that. Much better to get us riled up against the real enemy, Bushco, even if they had to print fake news in order to do so.

[Update at 11 AM]

Some thoughts from Debra Burlingame. It was an act of war, not merely a tragedy to be mourned.

I remember things somewhat differently than Lileks. In 2001 Saddam was continuing to annoy the West as he had been since regaining his footing after the Persian Gulf War, but when it became clear that 9/11 was Al Qaeda, everyone said, "Never mind that a-hole, we need to go after bin Laden." Everyone, that is, except the Wolfowitz bunch.

Without the Iraq invasion, there would have been no "diffuse oblique arguments about political timetables." The Iraq invasion smothered the unanimity of 9/12/01 in its crib.

It also rescued from the dustbin all manner of silly 9/11 conspiracy theories, the "religion of peace" trope, and whatever else it is that seems to be motivating the antiwar left. Because they sure aren't motivated by defeating radical Islam.

You *are* remembering things a little differently. We took down the ruling government in Afghanistan that fall, remember? And then, over the course of the next 12+ months, debated and argued over whether Saddam should be taken down as well (oh, that rush to war).

I remember things somewhat differently than Lileks...when it became clear that 9/11 was Al Qaeda, everyone said, "Never mind that a-hole, we need to go after bin Laden." Everyone, that is, except the Wolfowitz bunch.

Really? That's how you remmeber it? Is that what happened? Let's look at the Congressional Record:

On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114-"Iraq War Resolution"):

Yeas = 77
Nays = 23

Total Dems in Senate = 50
# of Dems voting Yea = 29

So a majority of the House, Senate, AND A MAJORITY OF THE DEMOCRATS IN THE SENATE voted for the Iraqi War Authorization.

Let's take a look at some of "Wolfowitz bunch", shall we? Among those "Neo-Cons" who voted for the war are a number of warmongers. This evil bunch even made impassioned speeches about how we could no longer ignore the growing threat from Saddam Hussein. In addition to the evil Joe Leiberman and Zel Miller Here's a short list of evil Wolfowitz, Neocon, warmongers:

Biden (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Reid (D-NV)
Schumer (D-NY)

So, of those who authorized the Iraq war, which one uttered the quote "Never mind that a-hole [Saddam Hussein], we need to go after bin Laden." ?

Come on kayawanee, is that all you have? Just a bunch of FACTS? Geezz....

Come on kayawanee, is that all you have? Just a bunch of FACTS? Geezz....

Posted by Cecil Trotter at September 11, 2007 12:24 PM

Heh =)

I remember things somewhat differently than Lileks.

Which brings to mind the old saying by Will Rogers: ""It ain't what people don't know that's so dangerous, it's what people know -- that just ain't so."

Kayawanee,

Bush's strategic thought impressed the nation at the time, and even those who had ample reason to doubt yielded to their faith in the Presidency. Yielded to their faith that Bush knew what he was about.

Things have changed. Nobody puts it better today than George Will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002065.html

Meanwhile, in the ABC/BBC/NHK poll 90% of the Sunnis in Iraq believe that attacks on our soldiers are justified. And we are told to think that the Sunni are now on our side! No. They still want to kill us, but only after we have helped them kill the others. That's how far we've progressed.

Please note the words "In 2001..." and "when it became clear..." in the second sentence of my post. Upon searching, I see no Congressional votes on Iraq prior to October 2002. That's when HR 114 came up.

If the idea of invading Iraq didn't originate with Wolfowitz and his close associates, then who came up with it? And when was this discussed?

You know it was a mistake, everyone knows it was a mistake, and now you're trying to spread around the blame. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan, ain't it?

You know it was a mistake, everyone knows it was a mistake, and now you're trying to spread around the blame.

Well, I don't know it was a mistake. I don't even think it was a mistake. Here's where your theory falls to the ground...

We aren't "spreading blame." We're simply pointing out the cynicism and hypocrisy of the Democrats.

Yes, many Democrats are cynical and hypocritical. So what? They're party two of a two-party problem. It has nothing to do with Lileks's post or my response to it.

I don't see any politicians standing up for freedom and against radical Islam, except maybe Tancredo. I see Bush on the right, who deep down thinks Islam is hunky-dory (see how often he says it), and who invaded Iraq as a distraction from the real problem. He learned how to deal with radical Islam from his mentor and hunting buddy Prince Bandar. On the left I see a bunch of crypto-pacifists who would chew their own feet off to avoid doing anything to promote American interests.

I agree with Lileks on one thing- it is a depressing state of affairs.

Artemus it's not that you're not entitled to your opinion but if you seriously believe that the majority of muslims are AQ-style you're way off. Let's differentiate a bit between people who mostly just want to live their lives and the other ones who'll kill friend or foe alike as long as they get absolute power.

Just saying we don't want to become the enemy we fight (a statement too frequently misused by the idiotarians). We've got to keep the door wide open for treating people as individuals; individual freedom and liberty is what it's all about and why we will win in the end.

Not intending to be preachy, we've all got our dark hours, but the above is what Tancredo simply doesn't seem to get (along with a lot of people on the opposing idiotarian side as well as Paulites/isolationists).

Lost our way? Some of us, more precisely some of our representatives who proudly tag a "D" after their names, have lost their MIND.

Case in point: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5418.html

"Meanwhile, in the ABC/BBC/NHK poll 90% of the Sunnis in Iraq believe that attacks on our soldiers are justified.
Posted by Toast_n_Tea at September 11, 2007 02:06 PM"

Estimating parameters is easier then dealing with real life.

Josh, you can ignore any poll numbers TnT puts up. I already showed that he doesn't know how to read them. He one time took a poll question that said 66% of Americans disagreed with the White House handling of the war, and then spun it as 66% Americans agree with Democrats. Further down in that same poll was a question of Americans who disagreed with the Democrat Congress, and the number was larger.

TnT lives in some lala land where he can make up facts that fit his vision. For instance:

Bush's strategic thought impressed the nation at the time, and even those who had ample reason to doubt yielded to their faith in the Presidency. Yielded to their faith that Bush knew what he was about.

I know few people who supported Bush on Iraq then, who now don't support Bush on Iraq because of flawed strategy in attacking Iraq. Those upset with Bush are disappointed he didn't hold tough after Saddam was defeated. Failing to do so has wasted an opportunity to squeeze Iran between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. If TnT's comments were true, then why is Jonah Goldberg and James Lileks commenting about allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons? It's not an anti-war position they are taking.